Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, Holiday cards 2015, 42, 43, 44, 45

...

I am using this space to create my sandbox. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought this might interest you, especially regarding your comments yesterday about rights issues. However, some potentially bad news. Amazon.co.uk has updated its status regarding the DVD from "This title will be released on June 28, 2016" to "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." Do you have a preorder with them, or did you order it somewhere else? I've emailed Illuminations Media to ask them what the situation is, so as soon as I hear back, I'll let you know. It's not a big issue for me, as the DVD is already available directly from their official site. However, from your perspective, they only ship within Europe (Brexit be damned, DVDs to sell!). So, worst case scenario, if you want, I'd be happy to buy two copies and send one on to you, as you'd likely be waiting a while for it to turn up anywhere else. But we'll see what happens. I'll be back in touch as soon as I know anything. Bertaut (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the update Bertaut. Interesting info at the link. I am glad that it got a full restoration. In reading the article for these I realized that the version that showed here in the mid 80s was the 11 part version. I did preorder it through AUK. I really appreciate your offer to get me a copy. I know that it would be a lot of effort to go to so I think I will wait a bit and see how things shake out. But should we reach the autumn and it still can't be fulfilled I may take advantage of your good offices. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 02:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Bertaut. There was an email in my inbox this morning telling me that my WotR DVD set has been despatched! So I'm two weeks away from getting to watch then. Thanks again for your generous offer, Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 12:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser! I haven't heard anything from Amazon regarding my order, which is still listed as pending. However, I did get this email back from Illuminations.

Hi Stephen, The reason it’s saying ‘currently unavailable’ is because we’ve had to pause it due to an error found with the labelling of the three discs :( So disc one is disc two etc etc. The plant are reprinting and it’ll be available again as soon as, once the trouble’s been sorted. It’s all very unfortunate. You are free to order from our website of course, but ultimately it won’t make any difference for the next few days. Would you like me to let you know specifically when we’ve got it back in? Very happy to. Sorry for the disappointment. Best, Louise

So that's strange. I guess we'll just wait and see what happens over the next few days. As a side note, I've only ever seen the 11 episode version as well. It's available on YouTube, but I got it on iOffer. A (slightly) better quality bootleg than YouTube's. But the blog is right about it being "awkwardly edited". The episodes end without natural climaxes and begin without natural beginnings, and, to make matters worse, the "cross over sections" between the three plays (from Henry VI to Edward IV and from Edward IV to Richard III) are both contained within the middle of episodes, so there's this weird mid-episode climax that completely throws the narrative trajectory off. Also, I don't know why, but for some strange reason, whilst the first 10 episodes are 50 minutes each, the last episode is only 20 minutes!! Really sloppy. But I guess at the time, they weren't thinking of such things as home video. Anyhow, we'll see what happens with the DVD. Any developments of interest I'll give you a shout. Bertaut (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is curious Bertaut. The info you got from Illuminations is interesting and, if they sent me the mislabeled version, most helpful!! In the unlikely event that my set arrives first I'll update you on how it looks. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also glad that - unless the current info is wrong:-) - that we will be getting to see the three part version! MarnetteD|Talk 22:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DVD arrived today. Discs 2 and 3 are indeed mislabelled. Picture and audio quality is good, about equivalent, or perhaps slightly better than the BBC DVD of An Age of Kings. All in all, a good purchase, and definitely a step up from my bootleg copy!! Bertaut (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great news Bertaut. I am in the middle of ep one of The Hollow Crown:WotR so your timing is fun as well. Cheers MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I know how to check and mark off Cyberbot II fixes. Check my edit history. As for there not being anything to update, I actually expanded a journal cite. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy If you know how than why didn't you? I have been working to clean items in Category:Articles with unchecked bot-modified external links for months now and have checked well over 15,000. The ones labelled "Correct formatting..." do not need to be checked as the linked worked before the edit and the formatting change leaves it working. That is as opposed to the ones that update links by "adding archive." Thanks for your help in updating these as it is a task that won't be finished in my lifetime. MarnetteD|Talk 02:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I check them them because I've found that they're often attached to truly badly formatted cites. In this case, one of the refs was a high quality journal (so I've expanded the doi, etc.). I read through sources to verify that the ref says what it purportedly says. I guess that I just take a slower approach in that I discover quality sources worth mining, plus - once I get down to the source text - I'm overtaken by a compulsion to expand more refs, tidy dup links, etc., etc., etc.. I guess we all approach the bits 'n pieces we do in a manner that suits us. Being painfully anal, I love this lengthy approach and include everything from MOS:DATEUNIFY to translating refs as I rub my front legs together in glee. I've caught out some whopper fibs while familiarising myself with so many subjects that my brain needs to be wrung out: so it's fun, informative and amuses my evil side. What more could a gal ask for?

Apologies for my snotty response, but I'd just been in the midst of reverting an old sock come to do some POV damage... S/he/it put me in that kind of mood. Cheers for now. Together, we'll make dead links a thing of the past. Then we can sort out the world peace business... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining things from your end Iryna Harpy. I certainly understand the frustrations that build up when dealing with our any of our numerous "pain in the patoot" socks - especially when trying to perform normal edits at the same time. One thing I've noted in working with these is how some websites have cute "404 messages" - Huffington Post for one. I really do appreciate all that you do here at WikiP and thanks for all your efforts! cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, my biggest frustration would have to be the human error/laziness factor. I'm still disappointed in the number of regulars who don't bother to provide the title of the reference, make up an approximate title that they like, or translate the title (badly) of a source in a language other than English. Considering the amount of work editors put into developing content, not being bothered to learn rudimentary citation techniques is illogical. I can't go around biting editors for being slipshod, but it's sorely tempting to do so. Ah, well. It's all in the name of much needed grunt work. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Chasing after Cyberbot II is a big job. Your work speaks for itself. —cyberpowerChat:Online 13:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Cyberpower678. If this task doesn't cure me of my editcoountitis nothing ever will :-) Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 14:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Network DVD is having a 50% off sale for one week: http://networkonair.com/ . As my friend who alerted me notes, "as usual the site is astonishingly slow at the moment, which usually happens for the first few days of their sales."

http://networkonair.com/features/2016/07/08/summer-sale/

Categories are at the top; the menus for genres appear when you hover over them.

(If I remember correctly, shipping is free or very minimal/reasonable to the U.S.)

-- Softlavender (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Softlavender. It'll be fun to see what I can add to my library of UK shows. It does come at the same time as the 50% off on The Criterion Collection films at B&N but that one goes to the end of the month so I have a chance to take advantage of both sales. Cheers and have a delightful weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good luck with both! Xmas in July. (Just a reminder: Network is film as well as TV, but you probably knew that ...). Later, Softlavender (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you join us at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TheLongTone. I agree that he needs to be disciplined and sanctioned. He called me and another editors "Sickos" during his AfD of the Riley Ann Sawyers article and got violently abusive to us after he lost the Sawyers AfD. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Paul Benjamin Austin. I will take a look and comment if I can. Unfortunately this message, for me, reads like WP:CANVASSing so my hands are a tiny bit tied. By that I mean that there could be accusations against you in that thread that would be detrimental to your case and I do not want to be the cause of that. Please don't take this the wrong way. I really (really really!!) understand why you left me this message. These kind of personal attacks against you and other editors are wrong. When they happen it is extremely hard to step back and then try to deal with them in the ways that follow WikiP policies. I have received attacks like this over the years and haven't been able to follow my own advice. In spite of all this I wish you happy editing (whenever that is possible) and thanks for efforts here at WikiP over the years. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'm just stressed. His nomination of Murder of Kylie Maybury reminded me of that editor that tried to have Samantha Smith speedy deleted as "anyone can write a letter to the government". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Paul Benjamin Austin. I completely understand your stress. Hang in there and enjoy the week ahead! MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to call me an "ass" for reverting your edit. Your "the update was successful" summary didn't seem relevant to either of the changes you had made, although I guess you were referring to the bot's behavior. FYI, I despise Audacity and don't use the Userbox template that you removed. Some guy (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am so very sorry that showed up in my edit summary Some guy. My finger slipped and typed two of the letter "s" when I meant to only use one - it should have read "not talk page material as it has nothing to do with improving the article." In all my years here I have not used that kind of language when referring to other editos - even in the most trying of situations. Of course I didn't get the spellcheck red line underneath the word because it is a word :-( My sincere apologies for this situation and for the offense caused. I hope that you have a pleasant week in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 04:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. No big deal. Some guy (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy, I think you will find the last two threads on this page instructive regarding Marnette's spelling ability: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took forever, but I finally implemented your requested feature. InternetArchiveBot now only leaves a message if it doing more the source formatting corrections. This should still come in handy as InternetArchiveBot is waiting to make almost 200,000 new edits to pages. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Cyberpower678. That is great news! Trying to work through the Category:Articles with unchecked bot-modified external links is like swimming uphill with cement boots on with a force 10 gale blowing in my face :-) so this change will be big BIG a help. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More good news (I hope) Cyberpower678. The last couple updates to "WebCite" have worked (like this Talk:1690s BC#External links modified so its possible that they have fixed their problems. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources (such as history books) claim that MCA bought Paramount's pre-1950 sound feature film library in February 1958 (although they incorrectly label "pre-1950" as "pre-1948" even though Paramount films from 1948 to November 1949 are part of the MCA package). 71.95.50.94 (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A) What does this have to do with anything and B) if you are adding this to articles you need to provide at least one of the "many sources" as a reference. See WP:RS and WP:V. MarnetteD|Talk 17:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an expression: "finger-trouble"....yeah, well, you just saw a demonstration of that! So, sorry! Huldra (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all Huldra. When I do the same I blame it on flat keyboards since I learned on an old fashioned typewriter thingy :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Here we go: User:Bertaut/sandbox5. How's that look? What I've done is fairly self-explanatory. Obviously, I've removed the cast lists from the 10 episode version and added them to the three episode version. I also removed the "directed by" credit from the ten episodes, and didn't bother adding it to the three episodes, as all three are credited to both directors, and the article already says who directed it for TV. Similarly, I didn't add a "content" section to the three episode version as the article already says where the splits are (although I did leave the content section for each of the ten episodes). I removed a couple of photos and left one for each of the three episodes, and I left the air dates for the ten episodes. Finally, I also limited the table of contents to 3 so as to prevent all thirteen episodes being listed. Feel free to tweak it as you see fit - I'll post it into the article once you give me the go-ahead. Bertaut (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me Bertaut. Just one item - if I put myself in the mind of a reader who knows little to nothing about the plays I would like the "content" thumbnails for the three parter. I understand that it is mentioned earlier in the article but when I'm reading that section I wouldn't want to scroll back up to find the info again. Perhaps they could be shortened to "Begins H VI pt 1 act one - ends H IV pt 2 act 3 scene 4" or something along those lines. I would still leave the more detailed ones for the ten parter. I know this causes a slight repetition but I think it would be worth it. That is just me though and if you are happy with it I would go with what you have done. Thanks for all you work on this! MarnetteD|Talk 03:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that I almost hurt my neck doing a double take when I read the credits of ep 2 and saw that Roy Dotrice played Jack Cade. I had to go back and watch the scene again. Just amazing. MarnetteD|Talk 03:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I generally don't like dual-role casting - my modern sensibilities find it hard to accept - but two occasions where it has worked vey well was in TWotR and in Jane Howell's Henry VI trilogy for the BBC Television Shakespeare, where she cast Trevor Peacock and David Burke as Jack Cade and Dick the Butcher, respectively, having previously used them as Talbot and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. It's a little on the nose - Henry's greatest allies 'return' to try top topple him - but I think it works well. Dotrice as Cade is a step beyond though. Only an actor at the height of his (not inconsiderable) power can so inhabit the character of Edward (he's definitely my favourite Edward out of the six with which I'm familiar - Olivier's Richard III, An Age of Kings, TWofR, BBC Television Shakespeare, Loncraine's Richard III and Hollow Crown), having previously disappeared into the character of Cade. As regards your suggest above about the "contents" section, you're probably right, I actually went back and forth on that very issue, so I'll add the appropriate info post haste. Bertaut (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I've added the new content to the article, so feel free to make any changes you think appropriate. Bertaut (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way it looks B. I know what you mean about dual-role casting. One that worked for me was a Denver Center Theatre performance of A Midsummer's Night Dream back in the mid 80s. They had the one actor play Theseus and Oberon and another play Hippolyta and Titania. The symmetry of the rulers of the day being echoed by the rulers of the night was wonderful. I'm kinda glad that I've not seen that repeated as it would get old if every director made that choice. I will read the update a little closer when I have more time but I think that your work benefits the article. MarnetteD|Talk 01:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get A Midsummer Night's Dream (2016) in the USA? Very strong production parallels with modern Doctor Who, mainly because of Russell T Davies, but also music by Murray Gold. Modern settings, costumes and props (e.g. tablet computers) for placing the 400-year-old dialogue in, plus a few characters that are male in the play are female in this production, e.g. Quince. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrose64 I hope that you are well. I have seen reports about this production on BBC America's website but it hasn't aired over here yet. Perhaps they are saving it for the holiday season. OTOH there are so few BBC (or other UK) productions on BBC America anymore that it may never air. I will certainly look for any DVD release to add to my library. Thanks for refreshing my memory about it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marnette. I can't say I care if Til Eulenspiegel gets to edit his talkpage or not (and if I don't care, why should anybody?). It might as well be left open. But there's plenty of evidence for block evasion and trolling by him, most recently from the 71.246.148.152/20 range. Unfortunately he has access to large ranges, and they can't really be blocked. There was an ANI report recently, but I don't have the link. Just thought you might like to know. Bishonen | talk 03:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for you message Bishonen. I didn't see any socking by those IPs on the talk page. I was also thinking of WP:OWNTALK. Since the access was restored they really do have the right to edit that page in the way that they want. I also don't understand why it would be redirected to the user page as that prevents other editors from reading any messages that are there - or ones left there in the future - as unlikely as that is. Having said all that after my edit tonight (my time) I realized I was doing the old "molehill/mountain" thing and I took the talk page off my watchlist. Please feel free revert my edit - if that hasn't happened already. Thanks again for filling me in and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His talk page access has been revoked anyway. His talk page is still there under the redirect. None of it really matters anyway. They aren't coming back. Adam in MO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.99.164 (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen, MarnetteD, Adamfinmo, and Til Eulenspiegel: (smoke, fire .. ) Regarding this, I have reverted Adamfinmo (now as an IP) again, and have blocked both Adamfinmo and the IP. In the meantime, I also revoked talk-page access from Til Eulenspiegel, as they did find it necessary to be unnecessarily blunt towards Adamfinmo. Upon that, Til Eulenspiegel also found it necessary to make an IP edit to his talkpage (yet another IP to be blocked). Anyway, my take here is that Adamfinmo was unnecessarily trolling, or even trying to provoke Til Eulenspiegel (I will re-instate talkpage access at some point in the near future (in a week or so), the personal attacks were unnecessary but provoked). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra Thank you for this message. I was trying to untangle all of the IP stuff that was going on with this but hadn't had my morning coffee yet :-) I am glad that you got there first and were able to make sense of everything. I appreciate you taking the time to let everyone know about this. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 14:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cross-posting this to you and Holanthony.

refs added, Reflist talk added, refs changed to bare URLs, Reflist talk removed, another ref added, another ref added, Reflist talk re-added. And so on.

People generally don't use refs for diffs. It's more work—in adding the ref, adding the Reflist talk, and even in viewing the diff. There is no upside. I have no way of knowing whether you and Holanthony missed my refactoring (either in the page history or in its effect in the thread), or saw it and disagreed with it. Therefore I'm not going to do it again. But I disagree with the Reflist talk "fix" to the problem. It makes far more sense to convert the refs to bare URLs and forget the Reflist talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello M. Thanks for your message. The one thing that is of no use whatsoever is refs at the bottom of the page. On a busy board like ANI they quickly get separated from the thread that they were used in. In the last year or two I see them used more and more often. I'd say it is 50/50 that Holanthony even knows the difference between the two and I have no problem with you changing them. Having said that I would add that IMO (and when there are several done in the same thread-even more so when new ones are added later on which is what occurred here) it takes much more work to change refs to bare urls than adding the reflist talk command. Please don't take this the wrong way. As I say your changing them was fine with me. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops completely forgot to ping you Mandruss thought you probably saw my reply anyway. MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a difference of perspective, short-term vs. long-term. Long term, it doesn't benefit the project to leave users ignorant about this, which is what the Reflist talk "fix" does. Me, I'm an incurable long-termer. Thanks for the response. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a better photo than the one you recently reverted, please put it in the infobox.. the current one is horrible. I may have been ill for two years, but I am not a newbie here. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one you added was not an improvement. It looked much more like a mugshot than the previous one. Please feel free to start a RFC to determine what pic to use. MarnetteD|Talk 14:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! Thanks for jumping in as well on that death-date vandal a few minutes ago! Since you're here, I welcome your thoughts on how to handle this: I would love to leave a message for User:Mikewayne84 regarding a variety of issues on articles he has created and edited... but he has used his talk page to mirror his copy-editing-etc.-challenged article, Gerard Lima. I don't want to blank or otherwise mess with another user's talk page—or, at least, if I do, I do want to do it the "right" way (such as that might be). Your thoughts? Thanks in advance from a fellow textile-creation aficionada - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Julietdeltalima. A pleasure to hear from you. I see this "change of dates" vandalism monthly (if not weekly) I haven't done much research into whether it could be one or two people or just random drive by vandalism. I've no prior contact with M84. Thus, you may have a better handle on things than I do. I know KrakatoaKatie has some experience with this and you may have already asked her (since you've seen us talk about knitting :-) ) but if you haven't that is where I would start. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help. Thanks for all you do here at WikiP and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My deep apologies for being confusing! I do know of your knitting through stalking KK's talkpage!! Yay, yarn!! (I fumble with knitting/crocheting myself but prefer handsewing patchwork!) To clarify, I have 0 percent belief Mikewayne84 has anything whatsoever to do with the death-date guy; that was just a "hey, we were doing this thing; can I ask you about this other thing?" overly terse segue that's my own fault for not clarifying. My overarching question was: What does one do with a new editor who has (AGFing) cluelessly mirrored an article onto his talk page and thus rendered his talk page unusable? I don't know what the right thing is to do here. So sorry to have made that unnecessarily confusing! Thanks for any advice you can give me! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm Julietdeltalima that is a puzzler. I suspect that (like me) you try and avoid the drahma boardz as much as possible but this may need an ANI thread. The only other place I can think to ask is the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). We really aren't supposed to prevent people from editing our talk pages (though an alternate one can be created but that is usually when persistent talk page harassment is happening) so I will be interested to find out what you learn. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mikewayne84 Hey I saw that this came up. I am not trying to commit any form of vandalism or ruin anything on here. I started creating the page for Gerard Lima and I just had really bad computer issues. My computer kept closing my window browser every time I went to save the article I was writing but I was not able to find it again when I got back on to re-edit or work on it. Gerard Lima this is the page I was finally able to create for this very talented filmmaker I have met and seen progressing in his career over the last few years. Again I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused. —Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your post Mikewayne84. I understand what you are saying and computers can do weird things. When you do these in the future you might want to create your own WP:SANDBOX or a use the Wikipedia:Article wizard to create your own draft space. Either of these will leave your talk page free for others to post on. Thanks again for taking the time to explain things. MarnetteD|Talk 03:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ManetteD.

Could you explain this edit, please.

Best regards .

Bastien Sens-Méyé (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was made because of the guidelines here WP:NOVELPLOT. For instructions on plot sections see this WP:PLOTSUM. If you have further questions you can ask them here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. MarnetteD|Talk 21:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just...wow. So you and Sro23 and I and others are accused of cyber bullying (or cyber billing, as they said on my page on Commons), when they are the ones threatening legal action and violence. And constantly bringing up the D'Onofrio's wife thing; I let that go ages ago. I think they've resumed again under other IPs again today. *sigh* Still, I've now got my talk pages at Tardis Wikia, WikiVoyage and my Commons protected so they can't harass me there anymore. Though as I've said before, I find it amusing. All they have to do is ignore us and not respond. But they can't help themselves.

It's funny that they say that we have no life. Myself, I've started a WikiProject that now has dozens of members, written stubs for most of the NRHP sites in Florida, visited and photographed most of the NRHP sites in Florida and other places (over 20,000 photos uploaded to Commons, btw) and rated hundreds of articles. And that's just on Wikipedia. What has BSaK done? This is why what they say bothers me not a wit. I've been on the receiving end of bullying. I know what that is. I've been on the receiving end of a shotgun. I know what violence is. What we're doing, that ain't it. Anyway, maybe they'll just go off and edit on the Disney Wikia only. Which they could do to their hearts content, and not be bothered by us. But ironically, unlike the song, I don't think they can ever let it go. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 17:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ebyabe. This person does seem to be losing it in a wider and more spectacular fashion as time goes on. On the plus side removing one of their rants did cause me to edit on another wiki for the first time :-) Thanks for your note and for all you do here and on other wikias. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which other wikia, out of curiosity? And appreciation for the thanks. ;) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 18:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah rats I'm not sure Ebyabe. We get pings now when a post is made to our talk page on another wiki but I just learned that they don't stay in out notifications history. I think it was commons. I also got the one where you mentioned Sro23 and me. That was a wiki that I hadn't even seen before :-). I'll see if I can find it. MarnetteD|Talk 18:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Ebyabe it was on commons but it has kindly been removed so that the trolling no longer exists. MarnetteD|Talk 18:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be WikiVoyage. When I revert promo-ey type stuff on city articles, I often mention them as a place to put such edits. They have some limits there too, but different than here. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 18:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MarnetteD,

You've stumbled into a pet peeve of mine. It actually makes things worse if you put a template in a thread title. If you do that, no one can follow the little grey "go to section" arrow in the edit summary. Try it in your page history on this thread; it won't work. It's actually much better to use square brackets. Sometimes when I see templates in a thread title at AN/ANI I change them, but it can be a Sisyphusian (sp?) task. Anyway, I doubt it's policy, and no one cares in this particular case because it's archived, but just FYI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The minute I saw this header I knew what it was about Floquenbeam. The problem with links in headers is something that I am aware of but it slipped my mind this time. I should have put the link in the body of the thread. I see so many threads where the OP doesn't provide links forcing admins and other readers to search and hunt for edits/links/etc so I try to help shorten said search when I can. My apologies for forgetting the problem you describe. Thanks for this post and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no links at all is annoying too. No worries, the fact that you're a mere mortal and could occasionally let things slip your mind had completely slipped my mind.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Not to mention it is an aesthetic evil, as J. D. Salinger would say. Softlavender (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's WP:TPO, bullet beginning "Section headings", which says "Link (or template) markup may be removed from section headings". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MarnetteD, I'm here to explain this edit which was recently reverted. I was attempting to fix the cite tweet errors by adding the date and used the content of the tweet as a title. If that is wrong, please tell me how I can fix it, because I have done the same on a number of other articles and would like to clean up my own mess if I made one. Thank you, Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. First you marked the edit as minor. I notice that you do that with almost all of your edits. These edits are not "minor" and you should not be doing that. Please see WP:MINOR for further explanation. Next a tweet does not need the entire tweet entered in the "title" line. Leaving it blank is fine. Other then this thanks for your efforts here at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that! I think I was confused because the examples on the page never specifically mentioned adding information to an existing reference as minor or major, and focused mainly on content changes. In the future, I'll mark any major changes to references as major. Thanks for clearing that up! I think I will add a smaller title to the tweet, however, because the template states that titles and dates are required. I hope that's all right. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 04:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I thought you would like to know that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Fitzpatrick was deleted and is currently under deletion review after an arguably unreliable Afd. Filmfan655321 (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You undid an edit of mine with the comment "rvt to last clean version". Why did you feel the need to insult me for rephrasing a sentence and adding a citation needed tag? 86.185.226.91 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]